Teresa Brennan writes about the association of affects with the seven deadly sins. While as time went on, perceptions changed, she describes, “how the affects, while they ceased to be labeled sins, were nonetheless conceived as entities opposed to the integrity of the organism’s expression of its true nature…” (98). She also mentions the idea that, in the past, affects were viewed as “invaders that work against our true nature…” (101).
I find this idea very interesting in light of Plato’s Republic. In the Republic, Plato argued that man is made of three distinct parts: the spirited element, the rational element, and the appetitive element. Plato felt that the appetitive element, or the aspect of desire within us, had to be controlled by the rational part. The spirited aspect formed the passion or drive behind our various actions or reasons (thumos in Greek). Arguably, and in Plato’s mind, our true nature, or a just soul, is one in which these three forces operate in harmony with one another—the rational leading the soul by restraining the appetitive element and the spirited element providing the drive to ensure the rational leadings are followed.
While I definitely think it is a stretch to say that affects are sins, I tend to think that affects, as Brennan describes them, would fall into the category of base desires that Plato describes. Emotions, or feelings we are cognizant of that have some rational connection, would likely fall into the spirited category. The view of affects that Brennan describes, in which affects work to defy our true nature, is surely incorrect in itself. Our affects/passions/desires that we experience are necessary to maintain our lives and stability in a certain sense. Without them, how would we be driven to eat, drink, or reproduce? However, when these affects operate independently of our reason and overcome us, then, perhaps one could say that this expression is not consistent with our nature, since not all the forces of our soul, as Plato describes, are working in harmony.
Yet, perhaps a more accurate way of describing this dynamic would be to say that, actually, the expression of our base desires or affects, is the most accurate expression of our nature, but not necessarily the most healthy for society, thus needing direction or guidance. In a way, our nature is what produces the drives that direct all our actions; our reason restrains them and the spirited element works alongside them. That’s why, as Brennan describes, with James’ help, these affects are actually operating within us all the time, bringing us pleasure and pain, and based upon them, we act to either mitigate or accentuate what we are experiencing; according to Brennan, “…judgment is the attempt to expel what is painful while enhancing what is pleasurable” (106). In Plato’s terms, these drives fuel everything we experience; our reason is constantly functioning to interpret and direct these drives and then the spirited element works to confirm and execute these conclusions with conscious emotions. As Brennan explains, this is also the function of Freud’s “ego”—managing these drives (111).
So, Plato can help us explain how we manage or relate to these drives, but what, exactly shapes the drives themselves? Clearly, they are the result of nature. But are we just programmed to experience certain affects , or can they be altered? Or would altering them be altering our nature and thereby creating internal dysfunction or disharmony because we are tampering with the source forces that make up our humanity? If they are truly all the same by nature, why are humans so distinct from each other?
It seems that our actions, since they are based upon our drives, etc. would work in conjunction with our drives, since they result from them, and would not alter our drives. Brennan explains that action “is defined in terms of actuality, actually realizing one’s potential by realizing one’s form and hence fulfilling one’s purpose” (102). However, there are other affects or drives that might be stirred up within us. These could work to alter our drives. Brennan calls these “passions” or “passive affects.” She writes, “one could suppose that the passive affects hinder us from realizing our form and acting in accord thereby with our natures…” (102). These passive affects are not formed purely within us by our nature and the drives operating in us, but are the result of our reaction to people and events around us. So, our reason and spirited elements not only operate to manage the affects that are within us but also to manage our responses to the affects outside of us.
Interestingly, it seems like we all have the same drives operating in us by nature, and acting on these would be the purest expression of who we are. But, our reason operates to manage these internal affects as well as all the affects that are coming at us from the outside. And this process, which varies from person to person, and, probably, from culture to culture, etc., is what makes us distinct (103). So, affects really shouldn’t be considered sins or the root problem, since they are the forces all around us that form the base of human experience. The part that is different for each individual, and, arguably, for which people can be accountable and/or try to control, is how they respond to these various affects. If Plato is right, reason is key to this process, but even this is worthy of further exploration.
Brennan, Teresa. The Transmission of Affect. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment